Napolitano: Obama will bomb Syria

President Obama will bomb Syria, with or without congressional approval or a Russian disarmament plan, and that will make him a candidate for impeachment, according to a top legal analyst.

The prediction comes from Fox News senior judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano, who was the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in New Jersey history. He dealt with hundreds of cases from the bench, served as an adjunct professor of constitutional law at Seton Hall Law School and has been with Fox News since 1998.

Napolitano, in an appearance on Glenn Beck’s television show, said sometimes there is a moment when even people in government realize they are “undermining bases for human happiness, human prosperity and, in the case of the Soviet Union, human survival.”

He said that’s how the Soviet Union collapsed.

“That would be the preferable way for the government to change,” he told Beck.

But there is hope, he said.

“Do I think that Rand Paul could lead us to an era of happiness, prosperity and smaller government? Yes. That will presume that there is a constituency for that, that people are elected to Congress who agree with that,” he said.

“Just having a president in the White House who would shy away from power, rather than use it to his own ends, would be something the likes of which the country hasn’t seen in 175 years,” said Napolitano. “I think we can get there. I think Americans are getting to the point where they have had enough.”

Regarding establishment Washington itself, he has little hope.

“I am pessimistic with the people in Washington,” he said. “I think we’re about to endure some of the most trying times in the post-World War II era … and the electorate will react to that in 2016.”

Beck asked him whether Obama would bomb Syria.

“Yes … to appear tough,” Napolitano said. And “if he does that, he will be a candidate for impeachment.”

Among those is a Florida-based organization of black Republicans, which released “articles” that charge Obama with “egregious acts of despotism that constitute high crimes and misdemeanors.”

According to the Florida WatchdogWire, there are 10 articles, including obstruction of the investigation in the Benghazi, Libya, murder of four Americans; the scandal of the administration’s running guns to drug ring lords in Mexico; and the Internal Revenue Service’s campaign to obstruct the operations of conservative and Christian organizations.

The National Black Republican Association is an organization dedicated to returning “black Americans to their Republican Party roots by enlightening them about how Republicans fought for their freedom and civil rights, and are now fighting for their educational and economic advancement.”

The organization said the articles were delivered to Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, House Speaker John Boehner, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and the Judiciary Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives.

“On July 4, 1776, the founders of our nation declared their independence from governmental tyranny and reaffirmed their faith in independence with the ratification of the Bill of Rights in 1791. Asserting their right to break free from the tyranny of a nation that denied them the civil liberties that are our birthright, the founders declared: ‘When a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty to throw off such government.”

The petition encouraging Obama’s removal from office states: “Therefore, we the undersigned urge Congress to immediately undertake a full and impartial investigation into the many blatantly unconstitutional actions of Barack Obama. For members of Congress, each of whom has also sworn a solemn oath to uphold the Constitution, to allow a president to routinely flout the Supreme Law of the land without being held accountable is equally repugnant to a free country and a free press.”

Tens of thousands already are on board with the effort, which is just the latest in a long string of calls for impeachment or an investigation.

Impeachment also has been brought up by several WND columnists.

Nat Hentoff wrote that Obama, “since taking office, has continually limited the First Amendment, the most singular and powerful right that distinctly identifies Americans from residents in all other countries on Earth.”

“I want Obama to go through the process because he has it coming. In totalitarian states, after all, the people have no other recourse except to take to the streets and spill blood. But we have available the process of impeachment, and Obama should be forced to defend his contemptible lies and actions,” he wrote. “If for no other reason than his unbearable arrogance, the schmuck should have to pay a penalty. For instance, when a White House reporter asked him to justify spying on the Associated Press, Obama said, ‘I’ve still got 60,000-plus troops in Afghanistan and I still have a bunch of intelligence officers around the world.’ No, sir, the United States has 60,000-plus troops in Afghanistan and a bunch of intelligence officers around the world.”

A panel of top constitutional experts convened by WND blasted Obama’s actions in office. Bruce Fein, the legal scholar who is best known for having drafted articles of impeachment against former President Clinton for perjury after he lied under oath, said Obama’s orders to drone-kill a terror suspect were “tantamount to murder.”

“You can’t have democracy and the rule of law if you never get to know what the facts are and you just have to accept what the government says they are. If you don’t have a trial, that’s the definition of tyranny.”

Louis Fisher, a scholar in residence at the Constitution Project, said of Obama’s appointment of “czars”: “That is a big deal. A lot of people say, ‘Well, that’s been going on a long time.’ In our form of government, citizens vote for representatives and representatives pass laws. You have people heading departments, and they’re confirmed. There’s an understanding that we will call you up whenever we need to. … Congress passed legislation saying there’d be no funds for three czars, and they were named in the bill. Obama signed it into the law, but in the signing statement, he said that’s unconstitutional because he has the ‘prerogative’ to get the advice he needs to implement statutes. Well, c’mon Obama. You don’t have a prerogative to bring into the White House anybody you want at any salary. It’s all done by law. It goes back to 1978 where Congress passed legislation saying you have this number of people and these are their salaries and Congress can increase or decrease that at any time.”

And Herbert Titus, counsel to the law firm William J. Olson who previously taught constitutional law, common law and other subjects for 30 years at five different American Bar Association-approved law schools, said Obama’s military actions in Libya are a strong argument for impeachment.

“That’s the one that stands out. It’s unprecedented. It doesn’t even fit within any of the precedents that have been set since Korea.”

“It may be early in the process for members of Congress to start planning for impeachment of Barack Obama, but the American public is building a serious appetite for it,” said Fritz Wenzel of Wenzel Strategies, which did the telephone poll.

On the issue of the Benghazi scandal, in which four Americans were killed after terror threats were ignored, 50.1 percent of Americans said Obama should be impeached. That included 27.6 percent of the responding Democrats.

On the IRS harassment of conservative and Christian organizations? Forty-nine percent said they agree that impeachment is appropriate, including 24.4 percent of the Democrats.

And on the fishing trip the Obama administration took into AP reporters’ telephone records in search of a security breach that may have been done by his own administration, 48.6 percent said impeachment is appropriate. That included 26.1 percent of the Democrats.

“The reputation of the Obama White House has, among conservatives, gone from sketchy to sinister, and, among liberals, from unsatisfying to dangerous” she said. “No one likes what they’re seeing. The Justice Department assault on the Associated Press and the ugly politicization of the Internal Revenue Service have left the administration’s credibility deeply, probably irretrievably damaged. They don’t look jerky now, they look dirty. The patina of high-mindedness the president enjoyed is gone.

Noonan said Obama, “as usual, acts as if all of this is totally unconnected to him.”

“He’s shocked, it’s unacceptable, he’ll get to the bottom of it. He read about it in the papers, just like you. But he is not unconnected, he is not a bystander. This is his administration. Those are his executive agencies. He runs the IRS and the Justice Department,” she continued. “A president sets a mood, a tone. He establishes an atmosphere. If he is arrogant, arrogance spreads. If he is too partisan, too disrespecting of political adversaries, that spreads too. Presidents always undo themselves and then blame it on the third guy in the last row in the sleepy agency across town.”

It’s even being compared to Watergate, the break-in that ultimately led to the resignation of President Nixon. That was the assessment of no less than Woodward, whose reporting on Watergate eventually snared the sitting president.

Woodward said recently: “If you read through all these emails, you see that everyone in the government is saying, ‘Oh, let’s not tell the public that terrorists were involved, people connected to al Qaeda. Let’s not tell the public that there were warnings.’ And I have to go back 40 years to Watergate when Nixon put out his edited transcripts to the conversations, and he personally went through them and said, ‘Oh, let’s not tell this, let’s not show this.’ I would not dismiss Benghazi. It’s a very serious issue.”

Additionally, radio host Mike Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor and one-time presidential candidate, predicted Obama won’t serve out his second term because of his complicity in a cover-up over Benghazi.